Roland

Is anybody here an expert on archaeology? I have read "The Bible Unearthed," "It Ain't Necessarily So" and "Out of the Desert?" among numerous other works on Biblical archaeology, and each of them confidentally states that the city of Ai, which is described as having been destroyed by Joshua, was actually uninhabited at the time the event was said to have occured. I brought this up at another site and was told that many archaeologists believe the site for Ai is actually a place called Khirbet Nisya, which, they claim, was occupied at the time and actually fite the geographical conditions better than the site the other archaeologists claim was Ai.

I'm wondering why it is that Finklestein and the others don't explore this other possibility. Is anybody familiar with this controversy concerning Khirbet Nisya who can direct me to any sources in which non-Christian archaeologists deal with it? I feel rather unarmed now after seeing all the websites proposing Khirbet Nisya as a possible site for Ai.

Thanks.

Celsus

'Ai in Hebrew simply means "ruins", and it was thus identified with et-Tell (Arabic for "ruins", and in close proximity to Jericho) since the 1930s (the first dig was in 1929 I believe), accepted by most scholars today. It was indeed abandoned from the end of the EB III until the Iron I, when a small vilage was built there. The reason why people don't accept Khirbet Nisya is because the case for a city being the biblical 'Ai can't be proven short of finding ancient geographic terms, or a instructions on directions. The only other reason for it's proposal, I'll bet, is apologetics. The best guess would be et-Tell, on the basis that many other Arabic names for ruins/towns in the vicinity of ruins have since been confirmed independently as sitting atop the ancient cities of similar names (indeed, Gaza, Jerusalem, and Jericho bear the same names only with modern spellings as their ancient counterparts. Other examples include Khirbet 'Ajlan preserving the name of Eglon (though Eglon is actually Tel el-Hesi), Tell en-Nasbeh = ancient Mizpah, Gibeon = el-Jib, Kh. Seilun = Shiloh, etc.). This does not always apply though, of course, nothing is completely certain, but et-Tell is certainly the best candidate. The problem of 'Ai has been acknowledged since the 1940s and there's wonderful quote-mine from 1948 by H.H. Rowley:
Notice that it has no problem for those who came later and recognised the mythic quality of the text. So of course, the apologists have been working at it for over 70 years now. One early option was that the Bible confused 'Ai with Bethel. Another was that any other city in close proximity with the Bible was considered as the real 'Ai (so they've finally settled on Kh. Nisya?). Now of course it's possible, but then they have to admit that to use the Bible to hypothesise about the town, they can't then turn around and say, "look, this town supports the Bible!" Note that even Internet apologist Glenn Miller accepts the et-Tell identification and instead claims that a town of about 300 men (people?) existed there, and fought off about 30,000 Israelites.

Joel

Roland

Celsus, Thanks for your reply.

This is what one site says about Khirbet Nisya being a better fit geographically than et-Tell:

http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.3D.htm

The problem of Ai
Now let's look at the cities that Joshua conquered and destroyed. How can we explain the archaeological evidence that says the cities were not destroyed in the 15th century? What about the non-existence of Ai? Ai is thought to be at a site known as et-Tell, which means "the ruin." It is near a site known as Beitin, which is presumed by most to be the site of Bethel.

Geographically, this makes very little sense. David Livingston has shown that the geographical information provided in the Bible about Ai and Bethel do not match the geographical factors of et-Tell and Beitin. Though most people still do not accept his conclusion, I think it is very well founded.

The Bible indicates that Bethel and Ai were quite close, but Beitin and et-Tell are not that close. Eusebius mentions that Bethel was almost exactly at the 12th mile marker north of Jerusalem. But Beitin isn't 12 miles north of Jerusalem. Other geographical information seems to indicate that Bethel was on the main north-south route from Jerusalem to Shechem. Beitin is not. The Bible says that Bethel was on the border between Judah and Israel. But Beitin is north of the other border areas. Also, Abraham camped on a mountain between Bethel and Ai. There is no mountain between Beitin and et-Tell. The Bible says that Ai and Bethel were west of Michmash (not necessarily due west, since Hebrew has no word for northwest). Et-Tell is almost due north, only slightly west.

Bireh, though, does lie on the natural geographic border between Benjamin and Ephraim. It's on the main highway about 12 miles north of Jerusalem. There's a mountain near Bireh; on the other side of the mountain, 1 1/2 kilometers southeast, is a ruin at Khirbet Nisya. Khirbet Nisya is west, and only slightly north, of Michmash. The geography near Khirbet Nisya matches the details given in the battle of Ai, unlike et-Tell (though some scholars would make the claim that et-Tell does match satisfactorily).

Livingston is excavating at Khirbet Nisya. So far the evidence is encouraging but it is not yet conclusive. Even if Khirbet Nisya is not the correct site for Ai, it is clear that et-Tell is not.

Celsus

Ok then, perhaps they are right (that is, I don't care one way or another because I'm not involved in apologetics/anti-apologetics). However, et-Tell is the least of their worries. Have you seen this table?

Joel

Roland

Celsus -

I think I've found a bit of a flaw in their logic here. At one point, the author states that Beitin and el-Tell are too far apart to be Bethel and Ai, yet I found out that they are separated by a mere two miles! Then later he claims they can't be the sites because they don't have a mountain separating them! That seems strangely inconsistent to me.

Thanks for the chart; that helps a lot.